Geauga County Sheriff Dan McClelland discusses cases about K9 dogs in law enforcement taken up by the Supreme Court this term.

Dogs have become a valuable tool for law enforcement officials, but the United States Supreme Court will have to decide if any limits should be placed on the super sniffers.

On Oct. 31 the court heard arguments in two cases that came out of Florida, both relating to the legality of using a drug sniffing dog before obtaining a search warrant.

In one case, Florida police acted on a tip in 2006 that a man named Joelis Jardines was growing marijuana inside his home. An officer brought a drug-sniffing canine named Franky, which then alerted the officer of smelling contraband at the front door of the residence.

The officer then obtained a search warrant, leading to the discovery of multiple marijuana plants in the home and the arrest of Jardines.

Advertisement

After moving through the court system, the Florida Supreme Court threw out the evidence from that search, saying the dog sniff violated the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.

Attorney Gregory Garre, representing the police, said in his oral argument that there is implied consent for people, including mailmen, salesmen, trick-or-treaters or whoever it may be to come up to one's house, according to court records.

"If the Girl Scout or the salesman or the trick-or-treater brought up a dog with them, there would be implied consent for that too, at least as long as the dog was on a leash," Garre argued.

"This is not any dog. This is a drug detecting dog," replied Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Ginsburg also expressed concern that by allowing this dog sniff to stand, it would give police the ability to sniff outside any residence they wished.

"Does your argument mean... that the police then are to go into a neighborhood that's known to be a drug dealing neighborhood, go into, just go down the street, have the dog sniff in front of every door, or go into an apartment building?" she asked Garre.

He answered that they could, but limited resources would not allow it to happen.

While he wouldn't go as far as to predict what the Supreme Court may decide, Geauga County Sheriff Dan McClelland said his gut feeling was that the justices would agree with the Florida court and not permit the search.

"The protections afforded us under the Fourth Amendment are very important," McClelland said. "A house, your home, affords you the highest expectation of privacy."

"I mean I've had cases where I was asked to bring my dog to sniff a home. My dog stays in the car and I go talk to the officers. It was then my recommendation that I wouldn't deploy the dog until he got a warrant," the sheriff said, referring to narcotics detecting dog Midge.

The chihuahua-rat terrier mix, which recently turned 7, has been with McClelland since she was 10 weeks old.

McClelland stressed the importance of the strong bond between the handlers and the dogs.

All the dogs go home with their handlers. Their rewards for successfully alerting the officer to drugs is praise and play from the handlers, not another smell that they are looking for, McClelland said.

"They're not looking for a dog treat. They're looking for what they've been taught to alert to," McClelland said. "Also a dog will work harder working out of loyalty."

The Sheriff's Office features five full-time dogs and two volunteer dogs. Each dog serves a different purpose, including narcotics, explosives and tracking suspects.

James Hardiman, the legal director for the Ohio American Civil Liberties Union, said allowing this type of home sniffing would be detrimental to personal freedoms.

"It would pretty much make the Fourth Amendment protection nullified," Hardiman said. "We would be suggesting law enforcement officers to violate the Constitution with impunity."

Hardiman also expressed concern about the courts' belief in the dog's smelling ability.

"The courts have pretty much accepted that dogs are pretty much infallible," he said.

Hardiman added there is no national standard to determine how accurate a dog is.

"When you're batting .500 in baseball, that's really good. But when it comes to constitutionality, it's not good enough," he said.

In accordance with rules set by the Ohio Attorney General, the Geauga County Sheriff's canines are recertified every two years.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the issue within a few months.

Regardless of the outcome, McClelland said deputies are and will continue to be trained in understanding reasonable expectation of privacy and what an officer can or can't do.

"As much as we are tasked with identifying and apprehending criminals, we need to be very, very conscious that we don't infringe on people's rights. That's what makes this country special," McClelland said.

"It's not there to protect the criminals. It's there to protect the citizens from unreasonable government intrusion."